In TLE#146, Charles Novins makes the point that the US vs Emerson
decision by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, citing the individual
right to keep and bear arms, reverses 60 years of judicial precedent
since US vs Miller 1939.

However, the ruling by the SCOTUS in Miller was also that the right
to keep and bear arms was an individual right, but only when
referring to weapons of military utility, usefull by a militia.
Emerson finally dismisses the "military utility" and "militia"
elements, returning the first clause of the 2nd Amendment to its
subordinate status.

In Emerson, we have an "individual right" again, but this time
subject to prior restraint. Had anyone informed Dr. Emerson that, due
to a boiler-plate standard restraining order, he was to leave his
guns locked up?

Oh, forgive me, I'd forgotten that "ignorance of the law is no
defense" idiocy.

Mr. Novins is very correct in his conclusion, however. It is time for
peaceful people to start being arrested, in large numbers, for
peacefully carrying arms.

I believe that the defense at the trials must then rest upon the
principle of "Prior Restraint" of an individual right.

A convicted criminal, while I believe this should only be the result
on an individual basis, is someone who has been adjudicated as
disallowed to carry their private arms. Dr. Emerson was in no way so
adjudicated.

A mental defective, while I believe this should only be the result on
an individual basis, is someone who has been determined to be
disallowed to carry their private arms, and they can appeal. Dr.
Emerson was in no way so determined.

Just as with any peaceful carrying of a weapon, Emerson was charged
as a paperwork felon. He unknowingly, without harm or endangerment to
anyone, broke a law based in prior restraint.

If someone was being prosecuted for writing a book, the usual example
of "prior restraint", it wouldn't matter if the subject of the book
was "dangerous". Why do we allow prior restraint to exist at all if
it has already been determined and adjudicated as itself illegal?

And concerning "yelling fire in a crowded theater", even that is not
by itself a restriction on the freedom of speech. To use prior
restraint to prevent anyone from yelling "fire" would be patently
absurd. How else would someone communicate that there actually *IS* a
fire?

Inalienable human rights are absolute. Actions and their
repercussions are also prosecutable. "Reasonable restrictions" is
collectivist propaganda, the rationalization of prior restraint. It
is the one real flaw in the 5th Circuit Court Emerson decision. It
leaves in place and even re-enforces the obvious prior restraint that
Dr. Emerson is charged under, and the prior restraint that requires
Mr. Novins to leave his home unarmed or discover he has made himself
a felon by the act of "not hurting anyone."

(5) If it be answered that, you must "break a few eggs (heads) to
make an omelet (desirable goal)", then when does that omelet
(desirable goal) become so contaminated by the eggs (innocent
people's lives) that were destroyed in the process of the omelet
making, that a moral person is no longer able to enjoy it?

My family starved to death in the Ukraine during Stalin's so-called
Harvest of Despair, except for one great-uncle who was shot to death
for being an intellectual. Seven million and more Ukrainians died
during that planned famine.

Lenin certainly said that you cannot make an omelette without
breaking a few eggs. My response is always: I cannot make chickens if
you insist on breaking all the eggs!

The state is initiatory force. It is evil.

The individual is free to risk or spend his life as he wishes. But if
even one egg, even a robin's egg, which does not belong to that
individual, is broken by him, he owes compensation. He has committed
either crime or tort, and must pay a suitable and meaningful
compensation, perhaps to include his life. And it doesn't matter if
he wears a uniform, carries a badge, says he is part of the
all-important gang who "really run things," has a subpoena or a
warrant, or is otherwise authorized or licensed to kill.